Parents Sue School over 'Lord's Prayer'

FOX NEWS VIA WORLDNETDAILY ^ | 5/02/02 | Steve Brown

[LarryLied]

However, the way I read the First Amendment, the Sikh majority would have no right to "push" the Sikh religion at a tax-payer supported Government school.

So you believe, as does Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that the constitution is a "living document". She and many others feel religion should not be taught in government schools so they to twist the constitution to make it illegal (why not just vote on the issue instead...hmmmm?)

There is absolutely no doubt banning religion from government institutions was not the intent of those who wrote the First Amendment. That it wasn't is not in question (except to liberal revisionist historians) While they debated creating a Federal church and declaring America a Christian nation, they never did that. They could have. But they never went the other way either and put any censorship on religion, something they also could have done.

If the founders wanted religion banned from government, they would not have held church services every Sunday in the House of Representatives after they ratified the constitution. They would not have had the government pay for the printing of Bibles. They would not have given land to missionaries to they could spread the Christian faith.

Those who hold to the view that the constitution is a "living document" are really saying there is no constitution at all. It means whatever a few judges want it to mean. A dangerous position. There is no supreme law, we are not a democratic constitutional republic. We are a judicial tyranny.

[LarryLied]

Your view is directly opposite that expressed in the First Amendment. My sympathies to you.

You have no knowledge (even with the links provided on this thread) of the history or intent of the First Amendment. You are in favor of Judicial tyranny, on the side of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, former Klu Klux Klan member Hugo Black, Ted Kennedy, the CPUSA, the ACLU and others who have sought to tear down our Consitutional Republic.

Becaue you don't want something, you are willing to allow judges to force people to do what you want. You do not want it to come to a vote, for the law to be changed in a democratic manner, because you are afraid you would lose.

Be aware, someday your love of rule by judicial fiat will come back to bite you.

[scan58]

>Doesn't that mean that if the majority of people in a community want to sing the Lord's Prayer at a >graduation, then it's OK??!!

Yes. Doesn't have to be a majority even. The right is absolute, not contingent upon a vote (that is the way it usually works in practice however).

I believe "in practice" you are correct. I mean the school cannot be sued because the girl will NOT sing "The Lord's Prayer"...by the same token, the school should not be sued because the other kids DO sing it.
Geez...there are so many different types of people and communities in this country and I'm grateful to have that God-given right to live near and associate with the ones I choose. (Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?)

One of the arguements which is most offensive is "What about Wicca, what about Thuggery, what about Islamic fundamentalism? They are next! They are next! Do you want that? Do you want that?"
That line of reasoning assumes people are not rational, people are not tolerant and people cannot work things out by themselves.
Unelected judges must tell them what to do. We must censor religion because some people might abuse their freedom.

Yes, I see that. It seems to be the norm for liberals to always assume that "one bad apple will spoil the whole bunch."

[dalebert]

Just completed a volunteer project with 5 third grade classes. The students made a quilt with an American theme. One student did not participate because his parents considered the project to be patriotic. The project covered art, math, history, and government. The teachers were so please with what the students learned and the kids loved it. One child missed out on all of it.

[scan58]

One student did not participate because his parents considered the project to be patriotic.

While these parents have every right to keep their child from participating, I must say that still sounds really sickening.

[dalebert]

I am sure the child felt left out. You could see it in his little face. I felt sad for him.

[rustbucket]

You have no knowledge (even with links provided on this thread) of the history or intent of the First Amendment. You are in favor of Judicial tyranny, on the side of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, former Klu Klux Klan member Hugo Black, Ted Kennedy, the CPUSA, the ACLU and others who have sought to tear down this Consitutional Republic.

My, we're getting into foul name calling, aren't we. Where did that come from?

-Judicial tyranny -- nope. Not in favor of judicial tyranny or efforts by liberals to block conservative judges.
-Ruth Bader Ginsberg -- nope. Her logic was very flawed in siding with the Florida Supreme Court against Bush.
-KKK -- nope. In the 1950s I was threatened with death in the Deep South for saying a black man should have equal rights.
-Ted Kennedy -- nope. I went to see the bridge to Chappaquiddick once.
-CPUSA -- nope. They want to take my money and the fruit of my labor.
-ACLU -- sometimes. On religious issues the ACLU is right on. They also oppose CFR since it restricts free speech.
-Tearing down this Constitutional Republic. Ha Ha. Nope. I was a Republican Constitutional and economic conservative before the religious right made their big move to the Republican Party.

I go with Jefferson's 1802 letter referred to above about the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. I figure he was in a better position to know than you.

You still haven't denied that you are for state sponsored religion, have you?

[Polybius]

However, the way I read the First Amendment, the Sikh majority would have no right to "push" the Sikh religion at a tax-payer supported Government school.

So you believe, as does Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that the constitution is a "living document".

No. I believe that the Founding Fathers said what they meant and they meant what they said.

I believe that having the tax payer funded public schools at the hypothetical New Mexico 75% Sikh majority town you described mandate that a Christian child recite Sikh prayers at school because , in your own words of Post # 172, "They pay for them" is exactly what the Founding Fathers meant to ban when they wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

To claim, as you did in Post # 164, that "According to the consitution and first amendment, schools can teach or mandate anything they want" is to claim that the Sikh majority in your hypothetical town can Constitutionally mandate that Christian children recite Sikh prayers at that tax payer-supported Government public school.

Such a mandate would:

1. Make the Sikh religion the Government established religion at that New Mexico public school in violation of the First Amendment.

2. Prohibit Christian children from freely exercising their religion by mandating that they violate the First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" again in violation of the First Amendment.

3. Substitute the mob rule of pure Democracy for the Constitutional Republic we now have.

In Post # 175, you said it was a "strawman argument" to argue that your position would allow the recitation of the Hail Mary at a Catholic majority public school in Los Angeles. Yet, you now argue that a 75% Sikh population guarantees your hypothetical New Mexico public school the Constitutional right to mandate Sikh prayers and that to disagree with that position is to agree with Ruth Ginsberg.

You are contradicting your own arguments from one post to another.

[Intolerant in NJ]

If you don't want to participate, don't, but don't expect the rest of us to cater to your "needs"...well said...one thing that makes me sad about this kind of story is that the vast majority of people are accepting of others values and will "work around" any conflict by not participating or whatever...families like the one featured here, though, don't seem to operate out of mutual respect and tolerance, but rather from a need to collect perceived injustices, feel offended, and/or pursue grand "causes" - sadly many of our courts any more seem to play right along with them and we do end up catering to their needs....

[LarryLied]

The Founders did not anticipate the 14th amendment. They really believed "Congress shall make no law" only applied to Congress, not the state legislatures. So we are at an impasse. The founders wanted states to do what they cared to do in matters of religion, the 14th amendment negated that. But not at first. Nobody noticed the 14th mandated separation of church and state until over 80 years after it was added to the constitution.

[larpenteur]

I live in Woodbine and have known these people for about 15 years. They truly are wacked. My wife went to gradeschool and highschool with a couple of their older kids. It wasn't too many years before shoving their atheistic religion down our throats their older children were singing religious Christmas carols in German for the gradeschool Christmas concert. Not as part of a choir but as a small group consisting of only their children. To know Kris is to know arrogant pride and the need to be at the center of it all. Truly a scary person.